3 ms·

It can also totally depend on what you need, instance-wise. I have a workload that includes a lot of processing and high-memory requirements. A 60GB r3.2xlarge

by aidos 12y ago

It can also totally depend on what you need, instance-wise. I have a workload that includes a lot of processing and high-memory requirements. A 60GB r3.2xlarge spot instance on AWS will cost you about $50/month while on DO you'll be paying $640/month for a 64GB machine. Granted, the DO machine will be way more performant, and you have to have a workload that suits spot instances. Every time I look at things like DO to see if I'm missing out I price up my current AWS setup and they're always astronomical (for my use case). Then there's all the other control around AWS; it's so much more advanced than all the other services. Nobody else really comes close to the flexibility they give you. For a lot of (probably even most) web apps that probably doesn't matter. Have a look at your use case and decide if AWS is worth it.

stephenr 12y ago
You're comparing apples with watermelons. The only thing vaguely similar is the memory, and it's only cheap because you get it randomly as the market fluctuates. In every other regard - disk space, CPU cores, data transfer, availability - the AWS spot instance option is MUCH worse than a regular VPS like from DO, or even a dedicated physical host. Ignoring the CPU core difference, a regular (i.e. so you can use it all the time) instance with extra EBS storage and data transfer to match the DO instance you mentioned, would be $1500/month. Places like Rimuhosting will rent you a pre-used dedicated server with 128GB RAM, 2TB HDD + 200GB SSD Dual Xeon (12 cores, 24 HT) physical server (which you can then run a single Xen VM on, for better portability) for $400 a month. Yes it's more than your $50 a month, but its completely yours, for as long as you want it. To truly take advantage of a spot instance and NOT have it impact your business, your workload needs to be very tolerant of interruptions and variable processing time per day. For the vast majority of people using EC2 (web/app servers running 24x7) it's not a realistic option.
- aidos 12y ago
  Agreed. But that was also my point - it depends on your application. Aside from that though, spot instances aren't that volatile. I have some that have been running for months. Obviously they're not always at the low low price they can be, but if you average it out, they're not much higher than that. In total honesty, I don't use those machines I mentioned. I use ones with 32gb ram and much better CPU performance. I need that ram for what I'm doing and any other provider I've found comes in a lot more expensive to satisfy that requirement. The CPU I get is good enough for what I'm doing. But again, I don't know anyone other than Amazon that has an infrastructure that flexible at that price.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    To me AWS still suffers from the same problem that most others do - their pricing is based around fixed allocations of everything (i.e. CPU, RAM, local disk space) - what if you want lots of RAM but don't need lots of disk space? Or Vice versa.
aidos 12y ago
Oh for the.... Could whoever down-voted this please have the decency to chime in with a reason? If there's anything incorrect with what I've said, please point it out. I'd love to know about other providers that would give me more bang for my buck. Is it the assertion that spot instances are a viable option for some use-cases? Is it the fact that I compared something to DO?

by aidos 12y ago

stephenr 12y ago

You're comparing apples with watermelons. The only thing vaguely similar is the memory, and it's only cheap because you get it randomly as the market fluctuates. In every other regard - disk space, CPU cores, data transfer, availability - the AWS spot instance option is MUCH worse than a regular VPS like from DO, or even a dedicated physical host. Ignoring the CPU core difference, a regular (i.e. so you can use it all the time) instance with extra EBS storage and data transfer to match the DO instance you mentioned, would be $1500/month. Places like Rimuhosting will rent you a pre-used dedicated server with 128GB RAM, 2TB HDD + 200GB SSD Dual Xeon (12 cores, 24 HT) physical server (which you can then run a single Xen VM on, for better portability) for $400 a month. Yes it's more than your $50 a month, but its completely yours, for as long as you want it. To truly take advantage of a spot instance and NOT have it impact your business, your workload needs to be very tolerant of interruptions and variable processing time per day. For the vast majority of people using EC2 (web/app servers running 24x7) it's not a realistic option.

aidos 12y ago
Agreed. But that was also my point - it depends on your application. Aside from that though, spot instances aren't that volatile. I have some that have been running for months. Obviously they're not always at the low low price they can be, but if you average it out, they're not much higher than that. In total honesty, I don't use those machines I mentioned. I use ones with 32gb ram and much better CPU performance. I need that ram for what I'm doing and any other provider I've found comes in a lot more expensive to satisfy that requirement. The CPU I get is good enough for what I'm doing. But again, I don't know anyone other than Amazon that has an infrastructure that flexible at that price.
- stephenr 12y ago
  To me AWS still suffers from the same problem that most others do - their pricing is based around fixed allocations of everything (i.e. CPU, RAM, local disk space) - what if you want lots of RAM but don't need lots of disk space? Or Vice versa.

aidos 12y ago

Oh for the.... Could whoever down-voted this please have the decency to chime in with a reason? If there's anything incorrect with what I've said, please point it out. I'd love to know about other providers that would give me more bang for my buck. Is it the assertion that spot instances are a viable option for some use-cases? Is it the fact that I compared something to DO?